Latest news with #CathyHarris
New York Times
02-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Asks Justices to Let Him Fire Consumer Product Safety Regulators
President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to let him fire the three Democratic members of the five-member Consumer Product Safety Commission, which monitors the safety of items like toys, cribs and electronics. A federal law shields the officials, allowing them to be terminated only for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance.' Mr. Trump gave no reasons for removing them when his administration revealed his intentions in May, and has said that congressional limits on his ability to fire leaders of independent agencies are an unconstitutional check on his power to control the executive branch. In an interim order in May concerning the leaders of two other agencies, the Supreme Court appeared to agree. The majority wrote that Mr. Trump could remove officials who exercise power on his behalf 'because the Constitution vests the executive power in the president.' The earlier cases concerned Cathy A. Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Gwynne A. Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Those cases are pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lower-court judge who ruled that the consumer agency's leaders could not be fired, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the Federal District Court in Maryland, cited a 1935 Supreme Court ruling in his decision in June. Judge Maddox, who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said the 1935 precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, barred the firings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., rejected the administration's request for a pause of Judge Maddox's ruling in an unsigned ruling on Tuesday. In a concurring opinion, Judge James A. Wynn Jr., who was appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote that Humphrey's Executor had not been overruled and governed the case. In the administration's emergency application, D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, said the court's emergency order in May 'squarely controls this case.' 'If anything,' he wrote, 'this is an even stronger case for a stay. President Trump decided to remove three commissioners who would otherwise make up a majority of the C.P.S.C., and whose actions since their putative reinstatement only underscore their hostility to the president's agenda.'
Zawya
23-05-2025
- Business
- Zawya
US Supreme Court says Fed is unique, easing worries over Trump's ability to fire Powell
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday in a legal battle over President Donald Trump's firing of two federal labor board members contained a line that eased, for now, worries that the cases could open the door for Trump to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell at will. The court's order allows Trump to keep the two Democratic labor board members sidelined while they challenge the legality of their removal. Lawyers for Gwynne Wilcox, who was removed from the National Labor Relations Board, and for Cathy Harris, who was dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, had argued that a ruling in favor of the Trump administration could undermine legal protections for Fed policymakers long seen as being insulated from presidential dismissal for reasons other than malfeasance or misconduct. "We disagree," a majority of justices said in the court's brief, unsigned ruling. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks." The two cases have been closely watched as proxies for whether Trump has the authority to fire officials at the Fed. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that created the nation's third and still existing central bank stipulates that Fed officials may be dismissed only "for cause," not for political or policy disagreements. "This view of the Supreme Court really does ease my worries about their inclination to extrapolate from the NLRB cases to the Fed so I breathed a sigh of relief," said LH Meyer analyst Derek Tang, who has followed the cases closely. Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Powell, whom he nominated to the post during his first term and who was renominated to a second term by Democratic President Joe Biden, and said he wants to see him gone from the central bank. Though Trump, who has attacked Powell over the Fed's decision to not lower interest rates, recently said he has no intention of trying to fire Powell, the possibility has unsettled financial markets that bank on an independent Fed's ability to do its job without political interference. Powell has said he believes his firing would not be permitted under the law. The Fed system's seven governors, including the system chair, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Powell's term ends in May 2026, and Trump is expected to nominate a successor in the coming months. Krishna Guha, a vice chair at Evercore ISI, said the Supreme Court's opinion was encouraging but not definitive. "It strictly only addresses whether a ruling on Wilcox would 'necessarily' implicate the Fed," he said
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court implies it will let Trump fire members of any agency other than the Fed
WASHINGTON - In a win for President Donald Trump in his efforts to take control over independent agencies, the Supreme Court allowed him on May 22 to keep two Democratic members of federal labor boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds. But it also suggested that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would be exempt from any future decisions in the cases. The high court signaled in its opinion that it may ultimately overturn a 1935 precedent and side with Trump in the underlying cases, allowing him to permanently remove without cause members of boards that Congress created to be independent of direct presidential control. But the court also indicated that it would distinguish between the Fed and other agencies. The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate Washington-based federal judges that had shielded Cathy Harris from being dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox from being removed from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) before their terms expire. Their legal challenges are ongoing in lower courts. Both were appointed to their posts by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. In a brief, unsigned opinion, the court said that its action on Thursday "reflects our judgment that the government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power." "Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the president," the court wrote, "he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents." The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the opinion. The opinion also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve. "We disagree," the court stated. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States." The legal fight over these firings emerged as an important test of Trump's efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from the president's direct control. Trump's move to oust Harris and Wilcox was part of his far-reaching shakeup and downsizing of the U.S. government, including firing thousands of workers, dismantling federal agencies, installing loyalists in key jobs and purging career officials. Chief Justice John Roberts on April 9 temporarily halted orders by the two judges who had blocked Trump's firing of Harris and Wilcox, giving the justices more time to decide how to proceed. The labor boards after that decision by Roberts had confirmed that Harris and Wilcox were no longer in their posts. U.S. District Judges Rudolph Contreras and Beryl Howell separately upheld federal laws protecting officials serving in these posts from being fired without cause, rejecting Trump's argument that the measures passed by Congress encroach on authority granted to the president under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 7 declined to pause the rulings by the judges while the cases proceed after an earlier ruling by that court had permitted the removals. Harris was appointed by Biden in 2022 to serve a seven-year term. Trump moved to fire her on February 10 after naming Henry Kerner, a Republican, as acting chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Federal workers who lose their jobs can bring a challenge before the merit board, an independent three-member panel with quasi-judicial powers, seeking to be reinstated. The board has proven to be a potential roadblock to the Trump administration's efforts to carry out mass firings of probationary workers, meaning those recently given their positions. Trump's efforts to remove Harris have threatened to leave the board without a two-seat quorum - making it unable to decide cases - after the term of Democratic member Raymond Limon expired on February 28. In ruling in favor of Harris, Contreras said the statutory protections for board members from being removed without cause conform with the Constitution in light of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent in a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States. In that case, the court ruled that a president lacks unfettered power to remove commissioners of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, faulting then-President Franklin Roosevelt's firing of a commissioner on that agency for policy differences. Federal law permits a president to remove an official serving in this post only with cause such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance. Howell, the judge overseeing Wilcox's case, ruled on similar grounds to uphold almost identical job protections for the National Labor Relations Board member. The National Labor Relations Board, which has five members when fully stocked, enforces laws protecting the rights of private-sector workers to organize, join labor unions and advocate for better working conditions, and it oversees union elections. Federal labor law generally does not allow workers to sue for violations in court, so the board is often their only recourse. Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the National Labor Relations Board, was appointed to a second five-year term in 2023 by Biden for a new term. Trump moved to fire her on January 27. Without Wilcox, the board would lack its needed three-seat quorum because it already had two vacancies. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court lets Trump keep labor board members sidelined for now
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court fight may shape Trump's ability to fire Fed chair
WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) – When the U.S. Supreme Court rules on President Donald Trump's effort to remove two federal labor board members, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will be watching for clues about his own job security. The court fight over Trump's firings of two Democratic labor board members despite legal protections for these positions has emerged as a key test of his efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from a president's direct control. At issue in the dispute over Trump's dismissals of Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board is whether safeguards passed by Congress to prevent officials in these posts from being fired without cause encroach on presidential authority set out in the Constitution. Harris and Wilcox were appointed by the Republican president's Democratic predecessor, President Joe Biden, and both had years left in their terms in office. More: Supreme Court lets Donald Trump fire independent board members – for now The cases are being watched as potential proxies for whether Trump has the authority to fire Fed officials, particularly after his recent criticism of Powell shook financial markets and fueled questions about the U.S. central bank's ability to pursue monetary policy free from political began a four-year term as Fed chief in 2018 after being nominated by Trump during his first presidential term and was reappointed by Biden to serve until May 2026. His 14-year term on the Fed's Board of Governors is set to run through January 2028. Members of the Fed's Board of Governors, like the labor board members, have "for-cause" removal protections meant to let a president fire them only for reasons such as inefficiency or malfeasance, not policy disagreement. Legal experts said that if the Supreme Court decides to eliminate removal protections for the two labor boards, it may try to create an exception that would insulate Federal Reserve officials like Powell in a bid to preserve the Fed's independence. The court gestured in this direction in a footnote to a 2020 ruling that suggested, but did not decide, that the Fed may be able to "claim a special historical status" entitling it to a greater degree of distance from presidential control than some other independent agencies. Other legal grounds have been offered for why the Fed should be more insulated from presidential control than certain other agencies, including an argument advanced by some conservative judges and advocates that the central bank does not necessarily wield substantial executive power. But legal scholars who found the rationales unconvincing said there is no principled reason for treating the Fed differently than the labor boards under a series of Supreme Court rulings that have upheld for-cause protections for certain agencies. "If the court carves out a special exception for the Federal Reserve, it will appear that the justices are not applying Article II but legislating from the bench and substituting their personal policy preferences," said Christine Chabot, a professor at Marquette University Law School in Wisconsin, referring to the constitutional provision delineating presidential powers. Trump's move to oust Harris and Wilcox was part of his far-reaching shakeup and downsizing of the U.S. government, including firing thousands of workers, dismantling agencies, installing loyalists in key jobs and purging career officials. Harris and Wilcox filed separate legal challenges to their firings, leading two Washington-based federal judges to block their removal under a 1935 Supreme Court precedent in a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States. In that ruling, the court rebuffed Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to defy protections for U.S. Federal Trade Commission members. Chief Justice John Roberts on April 9 granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily halt the judicial orders that had kept Harris and Wilcox in office. The labor boards, after that decision, confirmed the officials were no longer in their posts. The action by Roberts gave the justices more time to decide whether Trump can keep Harris and Wilcox sidelined while their legal challenges proceed. That decision could come at any time. Justice Department lawyers have asked the Supreme Court to consider hearing arguments on a fast-track basis on whether the labor board protections encroached on presidential power and whether Humphrey's Executor was wrongly decided and should be overruled. They said a ruling in favor of Trump need not have implications for other agencies such as the Fed. Even some prominent conservative scholars have expressed skepticism that overruling the 1935 decision could be limited in this manner. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. "I don't think that the court could overrule Humphrey's Executor and logically not bring into doubt the for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve Board," said John Yoo, who served as a Justice Department lawyer under Republican President George W. Bush and is now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Concerns about Fed independence grew when Trump rattled financial markets by repeatedly criticizing Powell over the Fed's decision, for now, not to further cut interest rates. Trump on April 21 even called Powell a "major loser." The president de-escalated the matter the next day by saying he has no plans to fire Powell. Trump previously said he believes Powell would leave if he asked him to do so. Powell has said the Fed will wait for more data on the U.S. economy's direction before changing interest rates and has cautioned that Trump's tariff policies risked pushing inflation and employment further from the central bank's goals. Shortly after Trump's election last year, Powell said he would refuse to leave office early if the president tried to oust him and that he could not be legally removed. Powell said on April 16 that he is "monitoring carefully" the dispute at the Supreme Court over the labor board firings. Powell said he did not think the outcome of those cases would apply to the Fed, but did not explain why in those remarks. The fate of the statutory tenure protections in question likely rests on how the justices treat Humphrey's Executor and related rulings. In the 1935 ruling, the court upheld for-cause removal protections for Federal Trade Commission members, faulting Roosevelt's firing of a commissioner for policy differences. In that decision, the court said that restricting a president's removal of commissioners was lawful because that agency performed tasks more closely resembling legislative and judicial functions, rather than those belonging squarely to the executive branch, headed by the president. The Constitution set up a separation of powers among the federal government's coequal executive, legislative and judicial branches. Many proponents of a conservative legal doctrine called the "unitary executive" theory that envisions vast executive authority for a president have portrayed Humphrey's as wrongly decided. They argue that Article II gives a president sole authority over the executive branch, including the power to fire heads of independent agencies despite protections under law. The Supreme Court in recent decades narrowed the reach of Humphrey's Executor but stopped short of overruling it. In a 2020 ruling that upheld Humphrey's, it said Article II gives the president the general power to remove heads of agencies at will, but that the Humphrey's Executor decision had carved out an exception that allowed for-cause removal protections for certain multi-member, expert agencies. Justice Department lawyers in filings to the court contended that the judges presiding over the Harris and Wilcox cases read the Humphrey's exception too broadly. They argued that the 1935 precedent upheld tenure protections for Federal Trade Commission members because that agency does not significantly encroach on presidential authority, while the Merit Systems Protection Board and National Labor Relations Board "wield substantial executive power." According to Chabot, the Federal Reserve exercises substantial executive power, too. If Humphrey's Executor permits for-cause removal protections only for multi-member, expert agencies that do not exercise substantial executive power, then tenure protections for the two labor boards and the Fed "will fail," Chabot said. The court's 2020 footnote hinting that the Fed could be distinguished from other independent agencies by its "special historical status" is unconvincing, according to Todd Phillips, a law professor at Georgia State University's Robinson College of Business. "I predict that the court is going to come up with some rationale" to treat the Fed's independence differently, Phillips said. "If they do that, it's not going to be principled." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court fight may shape Trump's ability to fire Fed chair
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court says Fed is unique, easing worries over Trump's ability to fire Powell
A U.S. Supreme Court May 22 ruling in a legal battle over President Donald Trump's firing of two federal labor board members contained a line that eased, for now, worries that the cases could open the door for Trump to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell at will. The court's order allows Trump to keep the two Democratic labor board members sidelined while they challenge the legality of their removal. Lawyers for Gwynne Wilcox, who was removed from the National Labor Relations Board, and for Cathy Harris, who was dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, had argued that a ruling in favor of the Trump administration could undermine legal protections for Fed policymakers long seen as being insulated from presidential dismissal for reasons other than malfeasance or misconduct. "We disagree," a majority of justices said in the court's brief, unsigned ruling. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks." The two cases have been closely watched as proxies for whether Trump has the authority to fire officials at the Fed. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that created the nation's third and still existing central bank stipulates that Fed officials may be dismissed only "for cause," not for political or policy disagreements. "This view of the Supreme Court really does ease my worries about their inclination to extrapolate from the NLRB cases to the Fed so I breathed a sigh of relief," said LH Meyer analyst Derek Tang, who has followed the cases closely. Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Powell, whom he nominated to the post during his first term and who was renominated to a second term by Democratic President Joe Biden, and said he wants to see him gone from the central bank. Though Trump, who has attacked Powell over the Fed's decision to not lower interest rates, recently said he has no intention of trying to fire Powell, the possibility has unsettled financial markets that bank on an independent Fed's ability to do its job without political interference. Powell has said he believes his firing would not be permitted under the law. The Fed system's seven governors, including the system chair, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Powell's term ends in May 2026, and Trump is expected to nominate a successor in the coming months. Krishna Guha, a vice chair at Evercore ISI, said the Supreme Court's opinion was encouraging but not definitive. "It strictly only addresses whether a ruling on Wilcox would 'necessarily' implicate the Fed," he said A Fed spokeswoman did not have a comment. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court eases worries over Trump's ability to fire Powell
